[LBird]

Brian wrote:

 However, the disagreement is over the decision making process itself with you strongly resisting any suggestion that by default this method will need to be adapatable and flexible to the conditions, the circumstances and to the tools at hand in order for it to be effective.

Brian, if a worker asked the question of the SPGB 'Will workers democratically control factories after the socialist revolution?', would you give the above answer?Because to me, any party that suggested that democracy wasn't necessarily the correct political method, and that workers would 'need to be adaptable and flexible to the conditions, etc.', would be a party that is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the workers, and would go on to suggest 'party control', or the 'need for experts to make decisions', or a 'professional cadre' or a 'central committee'.Can you see my problem?

Brian wrote:

Its you whose making this thread controversial by arguing – like Robbo pointed out – that one size fits all and in the process forgetting that democracy can not be imposed and neither can the actual form of the decision making process be made to order when we are unaware of what the conditions, circumstances or the tools which will be available in a communist society.

I don't know how a worker arguing for workers' democracy in all aspects of production is being 'controversial'.If you or Robbo think that, then can either of you give your 'uncontroversial' method for workers' control, that does not involve democracy?I think that the ball is in the court of those who suggest that 'democracy might not always be the best method' to give some indication of what they do consider to be a workable alternative. I've given some above, but I consider them to be Leninist methods, and so I would reject them, because I'm a Democratic Communist, and I think workers democracy is the only alternative, and think that that should be said from the outset by any party wishing to attract class conscious workers.

[LBird]

Can't you go back to your mud pies, and leave the philosophy to the grown-ups?

[LBird]

I see you've reverted to idiocy, Vin. No surprise there, I suppose.Any attempt to treat you with respect and engage in a sensible conversation is doomed to failure.I'm not sure what effect you're trying to produce regarding the ability of the SPGB to answer simple questions.Oh, yeah, and since you don't think workers' democracy is the essence of Communism, I do think that you're a Leninist.A Leninist is someone who thinks workers shouldn't control their society, and that the power to do so should be in the hands of an elite.You believe the production of truth should be in the hands of an elite.What's laughable, though, is that you don't even comprehend the seriousness of these discussions.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Even if you are unable to answer that question, Vin, I'm very surprised that the SPGB can't answer so fundamental a question regarding the prospective limits of 'workers' power'.

 That is because you believe that there will be 'class conscious workers' in a classless communist society. No wonder your arguments are confusing. You have a completely different view of communism/socialism than I have. Your idea of communism/socialism is closer to the left wing.To answer your question : there will be no class control of science because there will be no classes. 

So, who will control science?If we're talking about a classless Communist society, everybody will determine 'science' by democratic methods. That is, 'truth' and the production of scientific knowledge will be determined by a vote.If you disagree with this democratic method, Vin, you'll have to specify 'who' (which elite) and 'how' (what political method they'll use) 'truth' will be produced.I'm a Communist because I'm a democrat and a worker, and I want to see a society in which workers democratically control the means of production. That necessarily includes science and truth.Can you spell out what you mean by socialism and its relation to science and truth?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workers 

 This is absolute nonsense. 

That's an arguable point of view, Vin.But then, if one argues that it is nonsense that class conscious workers should control the production of scientific knowledge, that leaves the problem of just who should have this power.Even if you are unable to answer that question, Vin, I'm very surprised that the SPGB can't answer so fundamental a question regarding the prospective limits of 'workers' power'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…but also from scientific freedom to experiement and utilise the technology before them.

I know from our ongoing discussions, YMS, that you're not a democrat regarding these issues, but, given what I've asked earlier of Brian, about my assumptions that the basis of socialism is class conscious workers making production decisions by democratic methods, my question still stands.Who (or what) determines the extents of 'scientific freedom' and the proper 'utilisation of technology'?Within a socialist society, I argue that this determination must be a democratic one made by class conscious workers (and these methods must be argued for by the workers movement within this society, as we go forward, because the methods argued for now will prefigure those of a future socialist society).If you disagree, it is in your court to tell us who determines these issues, and by what methods.Neither you nor anyone else who disagrees with my view, that 'workers must democratically control the production of scientific knowledge', ever answers that political question.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Take his advice and have a look at his past posts, you will see what I mean.

For once, I can concur with every word of a statement of Vin's.

[LBird]

Since your post concerns me the most, Brian, I’ve decided to give a further response, after more consideration. You said:

Brian wrote:

Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.

My assumptions are that, as socialists, we all already agree that socialism involves four things:Workers;Class consciousness;Democracy;Production.That is, socialism would involve an already developed proletarian movement, that was self-conscious of itself as a class, and was employing democratic methods of decision-making within all areas of the production of goods/services/power/authority/legitimacy/knowledge.As a corollary, there would be no elite/bosses/experts other than as class-conscious workers, there would be no consciousness outside of workers control (religion, god, for eg.), there would be no decision-making by elites/bosses/experts other than as class conscious workers, and the production of anything social (including knowledge, truth) would be by class conscious workers. Finally, all these production decisions would be democratic.To me, that would be Communism (or socialism, as the SPGB has it).Hence, for me, any discussions about the ‘future’, regarding anything whatsoever about any prospective Communism/Socialism, would inherently involve class conscious workers employing democratic methods of production.If you really believe that…

Brian wrote:

No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

…then I don’t think that we’re talking about the same meaning of ‘socialist’, Brian. If the other comrades here fundamentally reject my positions outlined above, regarding socialism, no wonder we’re having so much trouble about ‘Science for Communists?’.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Surely your domination of this thread adequately illustrates you have been actively pursuing an attempt to draw up a scientific method for the future communist society.  It appears you want it both ways in that you want the blueprint drawn up now on what the decision making process will be in the future.No socialist is going to agree with that method of thinking.

Arguing now for democracy in the future, is hardly a 'blueprint'.I'd've thought that the notion that 'a Communist scientific method should be democratic' would've been the least controversial thing that I could argue, amongst comrades who're in a democratic party, but it seems to actually be the source of profound disagreement.Whilst 'no socialist agrees with that method of thinking', that is, 'democratic method', then I think we can start to grasp why 130 years after Marx's death, the socialist movement has such little purchase amongst workers.Property is safe from the grubby hands of the workers, whilst such anti-democratic sentiment is agreed amongst 'socialists' who have 'science' on their side.Well, Brian, you'll have to stick with science, as you know it. Good luck.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Some of the points you make, LBird, strike me as being pretty sound and spot on; others I'm not too sure about.  It perhaps with regard to the latter that much of the confusion and subsequent backbiting has arisen.

Thanks for your considered questioning, robbo.I'm afraid I'm just going to have to settle for the result of you thinking that some of what I say as being 'pretty sound and spot on'. The rest, that you're not sure about (ie. the 'democracy' bit), I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave for you to investigate elsewhere, and with other contributors.I haven't got the heart any longer to carry on, having to argue the benefits of 'democracy' with comrades.My sincere apologies for not responding at greater length, robbo, but perhaps a re-read by you of the many threads and hundreds of posts that I've already made regarding these issues will, upon a second reading, make more sense. If not, it seems pointless me merely repeating myself to those who already have fears regarding 'democratic controls'.Neither property, money nor matter can be allowed to come under democratic control, it seems. A profound fear of democracy is rife in our society, not surprisingly, and it seems that that 'ruling class idea' affects even good comrades.If this fear affects even the SPGB, well known as the most truly democratic of the so-called 'workers' parties', then I'm beaten.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

You have alleged I am a 'Leninist', 'materialist', undemocratic and unreasonable.

Yes, and you've proved those allegations, by your theory and practice.

Vin wrote:

And all because I asked what ideology you were adopting. Which is a question you ask of everyone.

The difference being, that I answer willingly about my Democratic Communism, whereas you avoid all mention of your 'Leninist, materialist, undemocratic, unreasoning'.

Vin wrote:

I don't think you will get many takers.

That says more about the SPGB's inability to discuss science and Communism, rather than my attempt to link proletarian democracy and scientific method. The SPGB seems only able to provide your witless irritations.Keep them up, Vin, and I'll accept defeat pretty soon, and I'll go for the terminal ban. It's the SPGB's loss, not mine.

[LBird]

Is there anyone out there in the SPGB that does reasonable discussion?Vin, I'm afraid, is just 'ban-bait'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

If any comrades post, and don't appear to share my 'ideology', the first thing that I'll do is to ask them what ideology they are employing.

 What ideology are you employing?  

You've asked this before, Vin, and I've always replied, so why you're pretending that you don't know is a reason that other comrades must ascertain for themselves.My ideology is 'Democratic Communism', which applies to all human social productive activities, including 'science'.Thus, all scientific knowledge or 'truth' must be subject to society's vote. The only form of society that can implement this democratic control is a Communist society.You appear to be baffled by the very notion of 'democratic control', Vin. Is this bafflement the source of your repeated question?Or are you a 'materialist', and have an access to 'matter' that the rest of us workers don't share? Otherwise, why would you oppose 'democratic production of scientific knowledge'?You keep saying that you're not a Leninist, and yet you deny democracy to workers in their production of scientific knowledge.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

If this is the case how are we going to arrive at a decision on what will be the "scientific method " in a communist society?

[my bold]By voting.All decisions affecting society, within a Communist society, must be decisions which are taken democratically.If any comrades disagree with 'democratic methods', it's incumbent upon them to say what 'method' they think should be used by society.It seems to me that there are two choices open to them:a) deny democracy entirely; orb) deny that 'science' is a social activity, and so deny that 'democracy applies in this case'.In my experience, the bourgeois thinkers maintain the latter (often by the separation of physical science from social science, into 'the arts and the sciences'; Marx warns against this, and argues for a unity of scientific method, which is why he can claim Capital as a scientific treatise).Funnily enough, so do those 'socialists' who wish to prevent workers from controlling production themselves: these are the 'Leninists'. For them, their party has access to a 'scientific method' which is outside the understanding of the workers, and so workers can't be allowed to vote on something which is only within the purview of the party.These latter 'Leninists' also go under the name of 'Materialists'. This 'material' can't be allowed to be subject to a vote by workers; the party must tell workers what their 'material conditions' consist of. The workers cannot be allowed to vote on their own understanding of their 'material conditions', because they might disagree with the party, which argues that it has a 'neutral scientific method' ('materialism') which gives the party access to a knowledge that is outside of democratic controls.I've said all this before, though, Brian, and those who disagree with workers' control of scientific knowledge (ie. the 'materialists') will never tell us what their method is.In my opinion, the 'materialists' are still living in the ideological world of the 19th century. They pretend, of course, to be 'non-ideological', as do all conservatives.'Pull the other one', I say.

[LBird]

Brians link wrote:

If public opinion differs from the opinion of scientists on a scientific question, it is a safe bet that the public is wrong…

This is not a universal statement (or a 'truth'), but a statement about the poor educational standards within capitalist society, that we all suffer from, not least because of time constraints. The 'public' is not given the same access to science as are the elite selected as 'scientists'.This would not be true within a Communist society, where science would be a matter of general interest, just like any other productive activity, and all 'opinions on scientific questions' would be democratically-decided 'opinions'.Within Communism, the 'public' can't be 'wrong'. Minority opinions would be subject to 'critical social theory and practice', and then voted upon. Thus, a dissenting 'opinion' would become the 'true public opinion'.Thus, within Communism,

Quote:

If public opinion differs from the opinion of scientists on a scientific question, it is a safe bet that Mengele is wrong…

[Author]

Posts